OT: The Upcoming Presidential Election - And Now A Word from Henry Rutgers

[Source]

Not THAT upcoming election.... the one regarding the upcoming 1828 U.S. Presidential election pitting incumbent John Quincy Adams against Andrew Jackson. Adams won the disputed 1824 election. Jackson would win in 1828 and 1832. Thought you might find this interesting since it quotes a gentlemen who we've all heard of...........

From the November 17, 1827 Trenton Emporium

“The venerable Col. [Henry] Rutgers put the first vote in the ballot box, on the opening of the polls of the Seventh Ward, New-York, for Old Hickory, and made a speech to his fellow citizens. The following are the remarks of Col. Rutgers at the Seventh Ward polls:

“I am a very old man, fellow citizens. You have known me too long to suppose me capable of deceiving you. I desire to say to you, that the man who has passed through the wars of our first and second peril cannot be capable of plotting mischief against the republic: nor can the man who has exposed his person and pledged his property in the hour of danger, be the foe of liberty and his country. There are about a few of us left who witnessed the first efforts for freedom, and we are more than repaid by seeing our country, under the blessings of Providence, free and happy. Let us not suppose any man who drew his sword in the first and second war for liberty, could deserve the character which his enemies give him. I give you the ticket of the old republican party, and I offer it with additional pleasure, because it is the ticket friendly to General [Andrew] Jackson.”

 

[RUhasarrived]

Those were the days when foreign bankers couldn't purchase US Senate seats,as the Legislature picked the Senators to represent the states.In 1913,the 17th Amendment took away the states rights to do so at the same time the Federal Reserve Act was passed.What a coincidence!

 

[LC-88]

Those were the days when foreign bankers couldn't purchase US Senate seats,as the Legislature picked the Senators to represent the states.In 1913,the 17th Amendment took away the states rights to do so at the same time the Federal Reserve Act was passed.What a coincidence!

Spot on. In my opinion the greatest thing Jackson did was kill the Second Bank of the U.S. Too bad it was respawned in 1913 as you pointed out. Also "passed" was the 16th Amendment allowing for an unapportioned tax on income. Four years later we were spending large sums of money fighting a World War. Another coincidence.

 

[Hondo77]

Spot on. In my opinion the greatest thing Jackson did was kill the Second Bank of the U.S. Too bad it was respawned in 1913 as you pointed out. Also "passed" was the 16th Amendment allowing for an unapportioned tax on income. Four years later we were spending large sums of money fighting a World War. Another coincidence.

 

[SkilletHead2]

Those were the days when foreign bankers couldn't purchase US Senate seats,as the Legislature picked the Senators to represent the states.In 1913,the 17th Amendment took away the states rights to do so at the same time the Federal Reserve Act was passed.What a coincidence!

That's sarcasm, right?

Letting the NJ State legislature pick our senators would protect us from the elections being bought? Go to a list of our legislators. Pick three at random. Ask yourself, "Would I trust these guys to do my laundry, much less pick my senator?"

 

[nick614]

That's sarcasm, right?

Letting the NJ State legislature pick our senators would protect us from the elections being bought? Go to a list of our legislators. Pick three at random. Ask yourself, "Would I trust these guys to do my laundry, much less pick my senator?"

Yeah but as of now who really cares that much for local offices? They would become more important if they chose senators.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Soooo.. Our honored namesake was a criminal guilty of electioneering speech-making. Great.

Thanks Source.. good stuff as per your usual.

Hey, maybe I'll make a speech as I vote too. Lets all do it!

Lets see.. how will it go.. something like..

"My choice is between people who have not served in the military in any form. So their loyalties can be suspect.. They have not pledged their fortunes but made their fortunes in supposed service to this nation... um.. never mind, I'm going home now. Good luck with the voting thing."

 

[Source]

...Our honored namesake was a criminal guilty of electioneering speech-making..."

You have to have electioneering via speechmaking at the polls illegal first before you're a criminal. No such laws in 1827.

This was, by the way, the last such election without a political party convention to select candidates. The first political party convention was held in Baltimore in 1831. It was the Anti-Masonic Party who was against the growing power and influence of the Masons. They chose former U.S. attorney general William Wirt who, himself, was a former Mason.

 

[derleider]

Those were the days when foreign bankers couldn't purchase US Senate seats,as the Legislature picked the Senators to represent the states.In 1913,the 17th Amendment took away the states rights to do so at the same time the Federal Reserve Act was passed.What a coincidence!

Yes - it was a coincidence - considering that the 17th amendment didnt actually affect any Senate elections until AFTER the Federal Reserve Act was passed.

nick614 - yes - more important and subject to more pressure from outside sources over their choice for Senator. Back before the 17th amendment, the legislative elections were LARGELY a proxy for the Senate vote - basically, barring really big local issues, you were going to vote for a guy with the idea that he would go on to vote in his party for the Senate. You would actually get MORE outside influence because any state legislative race in a relatively evenly divided state had the potential to affect the US Senate.

 

[SkilletHead2]

The only reason the right wing is pushing for legislatures to control the US Senate is that they have worked hard to take control of the majority of them, have them now gerrymandered fairly well, and realize it's a route to more power. Yes, yes, the Dems do it, too, but the GOP knows that it will control the majority of them, and will have a majority in the Senate out to the horizon if they can get this. State legislatures are the hacks of the hacks in the political world. I'll stick with democracy.

 

[megadrone]

That's sarcasm, right?

Letting the NJ State legislature pick our senators would protect us from the elections being bought? Go to a list of our legislators. Pick three at random. Ask yourself, "Would I trust these guys to do my laundry, much less pick my senator?"

Who can tell. However, it increased the power of the federal government at the cost of eroding state power.

The House was the branch of Congress that answered to the people, and elected every 2 years. The Senate should answer to the states (consistent with the philosophy that the federal government exists because the states say it exists). If there was a true separation of power between the federal government and the states, it would be important for some part of the Federal government to answer to the states. But with the 10th Amendment pretty much null and void, this is truly academic....

 

[SkilletHead2]

Who can tell. However, it increased the power of the federal government at the cost of eroding state power.

The House was the branch of Congress that answered to the people, and elected every 2 years. The Senate should answer to the states (consistent with the philosophy that the federal government exists because the states say it exists). If there was a true separation of power between the federal government and the states, it would be important for some part of the Federal government to answer to the states. But with the 10th Amendment pretty much null and void, this is truly academic....

To me, the smaller states already have too much say in how things are run nationally. Making the selection of US senators some sort of smoke-filled back-room sort of deal just begs for corruption. We get enough bozos through the nomination process in states.

 

[e5fdny]

To me, the smaller states already have too much say in how things are run nationally. Making the selection of US senators some sort of smoke-filled back-room sort of deal just begs for corruption. We get enough bozos through the nomination process in states.

Hmmm.

Interesting comment.

 

[CERU00]

The only reason the right wing is pushing for legislatures to control the US Senate is that they have worked hard to take control of the majority of them, have them now gerrymandered fairly well, and realize it's a route to more power. Yes, yes, the Dems do it, too, but the GOP knows that it will control the majority of them, and will have a majority in the Senate out to the horizon if they can get this. State legislatures are the hacks of the hacks in the political world. I'll stick with democracy.

Not sure what you're smoking but GOP is NOT even remotely close to right wing. This can discerned by what these Rs do in office not by what they say to the public.

 

[SkilletHead2]

Not sure what you're smoking but GOP is NOT even remotely close to right wing. This can discerned by what these Rs do in office not by what they say to the public.

As I look at the list of contenders for the GOP nomination, I have to draw the conclusion that they are plenty right wing as far as I'm concerned. I realize you might have a different opinion on that, but it's not really a reason for a personal attack as part of your post. I think you probably didn't mean it to be harsh, but it's the sort of thing that leads to escalation over on the CE Board, which is one reason why, sadly, I've curtailed my participation there.